Would you be disappointed if Lamont is named manager this week?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: Would you be disappointed if Lamont is named manager this week?

    In Response to Re: Would you be disappointed if Lamont is named manager this week?:
    [QUOTE]What, Whitey Herzog wasn't available? Barf! Once more, the elephant labored and brought forth a mouse.
    Posted by GhostofTito[/QUOTE]

    Don Zimmer is the answer. LOL
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BOSOX1941. Show BOSOX1941's posts

    Re: Would you be disappointed if Lamont is named manager this week?

    Lamont is 64 and looks and acts 70. V is 61 and acts 50-55. Lamont was not even a good 3rd base coach.  I'd be very disappointed if they pick Lamont.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from jeff185. Show jeff185's posts

    Re: Would you be disappointed if Lamont is named manager this week?

    WE NEED JOHN FARRELL PERIOD
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from fireballer58. Show fireballer58's posts

    Re: Would you be disappointed if Lamont is named manager this week?

    BRING BACK GRADY LITTLE !

    jokes but yea i have no clue how u decide who to hire to manage
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Would you be disappointed if Lamont is named manager this week?

    In Response to Re: Would you be disappointed if Lamont is named manager this week?:
    [QUOTE]Absolutely. Guy hasn't managed since 2000 and he was not good here in Chicago with the White Sox. It would be a waste and he'd be a puppet. And if he is named manager, players like Beckett and Lester will be ordering multiple buckets of Popeye's at a time.
    Posted by ADG[/QUOTE]

    He finished first twice in 3 full seasons with the WS.

    And doesn't he have the best winning percentage in White Sox history, except maybe for Lopez?
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from concord27. Show concord27's posts

    Re: Would you be disappointed if Lamont is named manager this week?

    It has to be Valentine.  Lamont can't be the choice.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from UticaClub. Show UticaClub's posts

    Re: Would you be disappointed if Lamont is named manager this week?

    Concord gives very much thought to all of his comments so he must be correct. Although opinionated and authoritative, he always comes to the forum with facts that back up his opinions thoroughly. His word is gospel to me.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from concord27. Show concord27's posts

    Re: Would you be disappointed if Lamont is named manager this week?

    Utica,
    I had nothing to say but what seems certain will happen. I was merely pointing out that Lamont makes no sense as manager and all the circumstantial evidence points to Valentine.  The team clearly needs a vital imposing manager to lead after September's debacle.  Speculation on this topic is hardly controversial.  If it is Lamont it will be far more of a story.

    Regarding my strong opinions they are not really very different from at least fifty per cent of the posters here.  I am just on the other side of it.  You are a loyalist and I am a typical Boston fan who feels a duty and right to complain about things he does not agree with regarding his home team.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from samclemens. Show samclemens's posts

    Re: Would you be disappointed if Lamont is named manager this week?

    It's really not a big deal as to which candidate is ultimately hired, but the process has given the media something to talk about during a predictably quiet "hot stove" offseason so far.  No one has any clue whatsoever as to which of these guys would be the best fit and they are both obviously qualified for the job.  

    Their fates will ultimately be determined by the players on the 25 man roster in April and they will have some very talented players, some good players, some average players and a handful of mediocre players from which to choose when they fill out their lineup cards.  The 2012 Red Sox will have a very productive offense, a decent starting rotation and a questionable bullpen.  That's who they are and have been for the past several years.  The name of the manager will change, but the team itself will "probably" be similar to what it has been over the past 3 years which is to say competitive and entertaining throughout the course of the 6 month baseball season.  

    The only manager in the history of the "storied" Sox franchise who could be objectively characterized as having a significant impact was a guy named Dick Williams.  He took a team which had failed miserably for over 15 years and turned them into a World Championship contender by demanding that his players compete day in and day out without "initial" interference from ownership.  The honeymoon of the "Impossible Dream" ended quickly when a star player complained to ownership that the manager was too demanding.   
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Would you be disappointed if Lamont is named manager this week?

    Lamont looks like Jimmy Williams and acts like Grady Little - no thanks. Bring on the Fire that is Bobby V!
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: Would you be disappointed if Lamont is named manager this week?

    In Response to Re: Would you be disappointed if Lamont is named manager this week?:
    [QUOTE]Lamont looks like Jimmy Williams and acts like Grady Little - no thanks. Bring on the Fire that is Bobby V!
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]






















     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from samclemens. Show samclemens's posts

    Re: Would you be disappointed if Lamont is named manager this week?

    The perception of strong versus passive personality (Valentine versus Lamont) is predictably embraced by some fans.  Lou Pinella is a classic example of the type of manager that many fans want running their team based on his perceived "passion" rather than his substance.  Fact is that there is little difference between the Don Zimmers, Grady Littles,Terry Franconas, Bobby Valentines and Gene Lamonts of the world.  The first three had similar results in the won/loss ledger, but one had the good fortune of having the right players at the right time under the right circumstances to achieve the ultimate goal.

    Casey Stengel was a buffoon and a clown who guided his teams to an incredible five consecutive World Series championships because he had the right mix of players.  Money was not a factor in those days with team salary differentials largely irrelevant.  Good players make average managers look good.  Good managers cannot win unless they have good players.  Pretty simple stuff!  

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from parhunter1. Show parhunter1's posts

    Re: Would you be disappointed if Lamont is named manager this week?

    Disappointed?  No, that is not the right word.  But at this point I do prefer Valentine, for several reasons.  Not the least of which is that I cannot wait for Valentine to come to loggerheads with Lucchino.  Those fireworks should be entertaining and worth the price of admission.  So even if the Sox do play mediocre ball, the team will still be interesting to follow. 

    There is a big risk that Valentine will alienate some key players, and possibly end up with a mutiny on his hands that will make everyone long for the days that Tito was in charge.  So, I understand the idea of opting for Lamont instead, as a safer, less controversial figure.  I just think the upside to Valentine is worth the risk.  Sports are, after all, an entertainment.  Valentine will keep it entertaining.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: Would you be disappointed if Lamont is named manager this week?

    Mr. Clemens, sir ( or Mark, if you prefer ), Casey clowned around in Brooklyn and Boston in large part because he was saddled with pathetic lineups. 
    He had the best baseball mind of his time. He might still have clowned around some with the press in New York, but not with the players. Ask them.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from wallyac. Show wallyac's posts

    Re: Would you be disappointed if Lamont is named manager this week?

    The best manager out there is a bubble gum chewing, two time WS champ, who knows the team and would'nt make the same mistakes again. Yes bring back Terry.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Alibiike. Show Alibiike's posts

    Re: Would you be disappointed if Lamont is named manager this week?

    In Response to Re: Would you be disappointed if Lamont is named manager this week?:
    [QUOTE]I have no idea how to evaluate what manager would be the best fit for the Red Sox.  
    Posted by SpacemanEephus[/QUOTE]

    From a success standpoint, Valentine is the better choice. From a GM perspective, I'm sure BC would prefer Lamont, less confrontation.

    For me, if the Sox want to win, they had best name Bobby V.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from UticaClub. Show UticaClub's posts

    Re: Would you be disappointed if Lamont is named manager this week?

    Lamont or Valentine will be ten times better than this guy was.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Alibiike. Show Alibiike's posts

    Re: Would you be disappointed if Lamont is named manager this week?

    In Response to Re: Would you be disappointed if Lamont is named manager this week?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Would you be disappointed if Lamont is named manager this week? : He finished first twice in 3 full seasons with the WS. And doesn't he have the best winning percentage in White Sox history, except maybe for Lopez?
    Posted by Joebreidey[/QUOTE]

    Not exactly.  The WS did finish first in '93 under Lamont and were leading the division in '94 before the strike ended the season. he was fired at the beginning of '95.
    He managed the Pirates in '97 to 2nd place, but finished dead last in '98. They finished 3rd at 78-83 in '99, and 5th at 63 and 93 in 2000. He was fired after that.
    True though he is the 2nd winningest manager for CWS.,  Lopez was .563 in 1490 games, while Lamont was .551 in 468 games.

    Still that was 16 years ago, and managerial styles have evolved. Valentine at least has managed since then, albeit in Japan.
    IMO, Lamont is too similar to Francona in his style and I think the RS need someone with fire in the belly and and who is not afraid to discipline players.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from BOSOX1941. Show BOSOX1941's posts

    Re: Would you be disappointed if Lamont is named manager this week?

    In Response to Re: Would you be disappointed if Lamont is named manager this week?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Would you be disappointed if Lamont is named manager this week? : Not exactly.  The WS did finish first in '93 under Lamont and were leading the division in '94 before the strike ended the season. he was fired at the beginning of '95. He managed the Pirates in '97 to 2nd place, but finished dead last in '98. They finished 3rd at 78-83 in '99, and 5th at 63 and 93 in 2000. He was fired after that. True though he is the 2nd winningest manager for CWS.,  Lopez was .563 in 1490 games, while Lamont was .551 in 468 games. Still that was 16 years ago, and managerial styles have evolved. Valentine at least has managed since then, albeit in Japan. IMO, Lamont is too similar to Francona in his style and I think the RS need someone with fire in the belly and and who is not afraid to discipline players.
    Posted by Alibiike[/QUOTE]

    Bingo, we have a winner. Best post on the subject.
     

Share